search_articles

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety and idempotency need no restating. Beyond that, the description only hints at pagination ('read the next page'), and it does so via a parameter name (next_start) that does not exist in the schema, while saying nothing about result ordering, rate limits, or empty-result behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The brevity is appropriate for the tool's simplicity, though the second sentence's inaccuracy means the space it occupies is not earned.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but 0% schema coverage across three parameters leaves query format and limit/start semantics entirely unspecified. For a search tool whose correctness depends on query syntax and pagination, this is a substantial gap; the incorrect next_start reference compounds it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so all three parameters (query, limit, start) rely on the description for meaning, and none are explained. Worse, the one parameter instruction given references 'next_start', which is not in the schema (the field is 'start'), so an agent following the text literally would pass an invalid argument.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description pairs a specific verb (Search) with a specific resource (CiNii Research article metadata), which lets an agent distinguish it from search_projects, search_records, and search_researchers on the basis of result type. It stops short of explicitly naming any alternative or stating boundaries, so it lands at clear-but-not-differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling search tools, nor prerequisites, query syntax, or coverage limits. The only guidance is a pagination note, which is a calling mechanic rather than a when/when-not rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.